User talk:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy

The source of most POV articles on wikipedia: Asymmetric controversy
I believe I have made an important discovery regarding the reason why some articles are chronically biased. Most of them are articles on what I call asymmetric controversies.

An asymmetric controversy is a controversy between two sides, one of which is particularly interested in the issue and fanatical in defending its POV, while the other doesn't care about the issue a whole lot. Articles on such issues will inevitably be biased in favor of the fanatical side, because they put most effort into writing about it. Examples are numerous. Gun politics is biased in favor of pro-gun views because pro-gun activists care about it a lot more than gun control advocates. Market economy has a heavy libertarian bias. And, of course, democratic peace theory has fanatical supporters but no fanatical opponents. Paradoxically, any idea widely considered too insane to be criticized will have a favorable article written about it, since its advocates are fanatical about the issue while its opponents consider it too crazy to bother with. Keep in mind that what makes these controversies asymmetric is not the number of people on each side, but the intensity with which they defend their POV. This is a systemic problem on wikipedia, and I think it's time the community started doing something about it, like creating a special project to police asymmetric controversies. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 06:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You definitely have something. I'm not sure about the solution; dispute resolution may be enough - the fundamental hypothesis of Wikipedia being that, in any field, the literate and basically neutral (like Scaife on DPT) outnumber the fanatics. For additional examples, see the advocacy of bios theory on talk:chaos theory, or the pushing of the proto-Ionians on Phaistos Disc. (And, lest we forget, Income tax; this will get worse in April. )

I'm not a big fan of the dispute resolution process. It has proven chronically unable to deal with problem users efficiently (and I don't mean Ultramarine or other people who are opinionated but reasonable - I mean real problem users, who would be labeled as flame warriors and banned within days on a messageboard, but manage to survive for months here). -- Nikodemos 15:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The first example actually suggests a solution: there is a community at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (and, less organized, at Physics) which will react to the question of "Does this make sense, or is it extremism?" and join in to contain the latter. It helps that in mathematics there is a large consensus on what is extremism; but we have been spared the intuitionism debate - so far.


 * Is there a WikiProject Politics? Yes.
 * Is there a WikiProject Political Science? Not yet.
 * These might become nuclei of the non-fanatical majority.


 * Fortune, Septentrionalis 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your real problem user has been blocked for a month, and will almost certainly be blocked again for longer if he comes back with the same attitude that is manifest in his last edits to his talk page. If he doesn't come back, problem solved. This is slower and more cumbersome than a message board; but that's scale. No one sees all the edits on Wikipedia, so attention needs to be drawn to a specific user. Septentrionalis 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What you don't know about that real problem user is that he had been the subject of a RfAr, considered for a one year ban, eventually put on parole with no immediate punishment, and later blocked for a month some 5 weeks after the RfAr - 5 weeks that were completely wasted, because the RfAr had no effect whatsoever on his behavior and he should have been banned as soon as the case was closed. What I am saying, essentially, is that in my experience dispute resolution has been too lax with users who obviously have no intent to reform. But I digress from the original point of this whole conversation. Even if you disagree about our rules being too lax, what would you say about a possible wikiproject to go out there and identify possible asymmetric controversies in order to redress the balance? -- Nikodemos 17:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm an eventualist, remember, and I wasn't involved with that problem user, so I can afford to be more relaxed. You do have my heartfelt, if retroactive, sympathy. I agree that there should be a systematic counterbalance to assymetric conflict. What do you think of my suggestion that functioning subject-area WikiProjects should be such a counterbalance?


 * What counterbalance would have disposed of the problem user in less than 5 weeks? (And in practice it was less; he was blocked for most of March.) Septentrionalis 17:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikodemos, I saw your notes on Assymmetric controversy on Pmanderson's Talk page. I agree entirely.  This is definitely one of the systemic weaknesses of the WP.  But it is not just in assymmetric cases that the fanatics' position(s) dominate.  If you take something like the Macedonian issue, only extremists (on both sides) will tolerate the environment enough to continue discussing and editing them, and there tends to be polarization.  It is very difficult to go into the middle of a situation like that and be an honest broker.  I know that User:LukasPietsch has tried (in some other cases), but it is difficult and time-consuming.  It is especially difficult, of course, when you have nasty but smart people who have tactical skills involved.... --Macrakis 17:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

An eventualist! Quick! Burn the heretic! Immediately! :) On a serious note, I agree that some form of subject-area WikiProjects are the answer. However, POV-specific WikiProjects must be avoided at all costs (for example, we should have a general "Ideologies WikiProject" rather than, say, a "Libertarianism WikiProject").


 * Nikodemos, I read your notes on this on Pmanderson's talk page too. What I think is that too many users do not understand NPOV policy. I've had the same problem with RJII, and today also with Sam Spade. He (and RJII) thinks it's OK to put one biased source in and leave out others, "because of WP:CITE," and that it's not his responsibility to put conflicting sources in, but other editors'. Editors simply aren't trained to be NPOV, and that policy isn't hammered into their heads firmly enough. We should move this discussion to a more centralised page, though. How about Asymmetric controversy? -- infinity  0  18:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A related problem is what I call unbalanced citations - creating a well-sourced article that only cites sources from one side of the controversy, under the excuse that "it's not my responsibility to write for the enemy" (yes, I'm talking about - well, you know who you are). This is technically not against NPOV, though I believe it should be. At the very least, we should have a specific warning tag that should be placed on pages with unbalanced citations as long as the imbalance remains. Something like "This article overwhelmingly presents the views of one side in a controversy. Please be aware that there may be opposing arguments which are currently not covered". The criterion for using the tag should be the ratio between the number of citations for one side and the number of citations for the other. If it's above, say, 3/4, then we use the tag. -- Nikodemos 19:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the fanatics has just disagreed with you on my talk-page, arguing that the process of peer-review would prevent anything undesirable appearing, at least in scientific fields. This is, of course, bosh; what keeps science reputable is that silly articles are not cited even when they are printed. (You will have to go into the history to see it; I removed it as insolence.)


 * Speaking of silly articles, Ultramarine's private project is an exercise in ignoring the evidence. Other views may be found in this website, and Talk:Never at War. (My responses and Matthew White's are largely independent, btw; the handful of extremists Ultramarine is copying are often simply wrong.) I will add more there later. Septentrionalis 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty strange: "An asymmetric controversy is a controversy between two sides, one of which is particularly interested in the issue and fanatical in defending its POV, while the other doesn't care about the issue a whole lot." If you don't care about the issue a whole lot, then what is the problem? Only those who care one way or the other are going to get involved. RJII 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the article ends up with an extreme point of view, in favour of the fanatical POV-pusher. -- infinity  0  21:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but if others don't care one way or the other, they don't care one way or the other to fix it. The problem is not those who are trying to push a POV (that's never going to change), but apathy on the part of others who aren't interested in the subject enough to research it and provide more balance. RJII 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. This problem causes articles to be screwed up, naturally. It's a natural process which needs people to realise it, understand it, then actively fix it, instead of blindingly continuing to participate in the process, which is flawed. -- infinity  0  21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then if it's natural, it's natural. There's nothing you can do about it. If you're interested in an article's subject, you'll get involved. If you're not, you won't. A much more significant problem is people trying to get others banned from Wikipedia because they can't get around the sources being provided by that person --in other words, attempted censorship. And, you know exactly what I'm talking about. RJII 00:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the last part of the sentence invisible or something? "It's a natural process which needs people to realise it, understand it, then actively fix it, instead of blindingly continuing to participate in the process, which is flawed." - Being human is being able to realise when things are going wrong, and taking the steps to fix it. -- infinity  0  16:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think that numbers matter. For example, Race and intelligence is populated by fanatical editors mostly editing race related articles from a particular POV. Since other people get bored after a while, they can dominate the article through numbers. An equally determined minority will get edited out. The same thing can be seen regarding the DPT where Septentrionalis and his real-world friend Robert A. West excludes supporting arguments. As he is presenting their view here, here is the opposing User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another" Ultramarine 21:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Numbers are wikipedia's safeguard. Fanatics are often alone (great nationalist issues, like Macedonia, are exceptions, unfortunately).

DPT
I am using this as an example. Ultramarine disagrees on the facts here; I hope he will consider this a hypothetical example, and not diverge onto the accuracy of the claims. It does, as I view it, exemplify two problems with a hard standard on balance of sources.

DPT is, in academia, itself an assymetric controversy. Few people go out to write papers against it; those who are unconvinced pursue their own theory and largely ignore it. Therefore the ratio of papers in existence does not reflect the actual weight of opinion.

It is also, like many fields, divided into a number of small factions, each writing its own papers against the rest. When sourcing an issue that divides one of these factions from the rest, you will often find (in the academic literature) three fanatical aupporters, another three weak supporters, and a whole lot who weakly oppose.

Is it fair to include only the three supporters? No; that's what we're trying to suppress.

But is it fair to insist on three supporters and only two to five opponents, as the 3/4 rule would? No again, for the opponents are the vast majority.Septentrionalis 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII on competitive editing
I disagree with this. Competition is enormously good for Wikipedia. The more competitive someone is to get his "POV" across, the more he is forced to provide credible sources to corroborate his POV when he is challenged by someone competing to discredit his POV (and vice versa) --if he can't do it, his POV stays out. The eventual result is a well-sourced article. If information in an article is not challenged then the reliability of the article suffers. Moreover, Wikipedia can't be edited without competing --it's an intrinsic part of the process; if you're requesting a source for something somebody puts in an article, that's a form of competition --if he is able to come up with one, the information stays in, and he wins --if he can't come up with a source then the information is taken out and you win. RJII 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeesh, you sure make a lot of baseless assumptions, there: (1) that anybody wants to compete with you; (2) that anybody wants to simply delete your edits by requesting for sources; (3) that people request for sources because they want to compete with you, and not because they want a better article; and so on... --AaronS 03:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at yourself. You're even competing right now by arguing back. I've found you to be very competitive on Wikipedia. Some are so competitive that they'll even resort to trying to get someone banned in order to remove to eliminate the competition. RJII 03:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Willingness to compete does not imply desire to compete. -- infinity  0  15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah of course. Silly me. Some people would love to have a monopoly. It would be nice to put whatever one wants in an article without being challenged, wouldn't it? You may not want to compete, but, fortunately, you have to. RJII 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your "solution" to your view that "some people would love to have a monopoly" is flawed. See above reasoning. If you think someone is POV pushing, you should try to push NPOV, not push your own POV. I believe that is kind of obvious. -- infinity  0  17:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Competing to remove POV is still competition. If you don't like competition, Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. It's a very competitive environment. RJII 17:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If no POV-pushers were there in the first place, competition is unecessary. If those POV-pushers didn't exist, there would be no POV to remove in the first place. Competitive editing, which on wikipedia is POV by nature, wastes effort and energy, and hinders and slows down progress. -- infinity  0  17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Competition would still be necessary. If someone puts something in that you don't think is true, it's not necessarily POV pushing, you know? They're just trying to get information out. That's what Wikipedia is all about. If he thinks it's true and you don't then competition results until the matter is settled through providing sources. The only way to avoid competing is to not take part in editing Wikipedia --or find an article that nobody else is aware of and play in your own private sandbox. RJII 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not competition, because the editors share the resulting goal. There is no winner. -- infinity  0  18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Competition doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Both sides can win. Don't know anything about economics? RJII 18:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero-sum doesn't mean everyone wins. It just means winners win more/less than losers lose. -- infinity  0  18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you don't know about economics. Zero-sum gain means one side wins and the other doesn't. I said that competition is NOT necessarily a zero-sum game. It often is on Wikipedia, but it need not be if the goal of both people is bringing true sourceable information to light. RJII 18:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that you're competing with me right now by debating. You can't use Wikipedia without competing. It's an intrinsic part of the process. RJII 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero-sum, though this has nothing to do with "That's not competition, because the editors share the resulting goal. There is no winner." Competition is forced by aggressors. Many articles I have worked on, and much of the best work I have done, did not have any competition. -- infinity  0  19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I can only assume that they're horrible articles. Information in articles has to be contested in order to approach reliability. These contests are the only insurance we have for making sure an article is NPOV and the information sourceable. RJII 19:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An assumption without evidence or logic, like so many in free market fundamentalism. -- infinity  0  19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heheh:Free-market fundamentalism. There we could chronicle each time that someone argued that competition makes any microcosm better: classrooms, world economies, slave quarters, the cubicle maze, etc. You really have to ask, what are people competitively editing on Wikipedia for? Truth? Credit? Pride? Or their idealogical clique? The funny thing is, editors cannot achieve much towards truth/credit/pride, since wikipedia just won't help in those areas. However, those who edit competitively, for their ideological clique, have the most to gain. --albamuth 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with competitions, as George Orwell once pointed out, is that someone inevitably wins them. If articles are edited by competitive POV-pushers, one of them will eventually win and get his POV across. Is that what we want? -- Nikodemos 06:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Orwell was reviewing, and paraphrasing, Friedrich von Hayek - accurately. Septentrionalis 22:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good one, Sept. Interesting, too, because Mihnea clearly believes the aphorism expresses an important insight, but just as clearly didn't want to credit it to a disreputable Austrian laissez-faire type like Hayek. Asymmetry, indeed. --Christofurio 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My point, for what it was worth, was that this was something a socialist and a founder of the Austrian school can agree on (Orwell formed it into an aphorism, and is therefore more memorable). Let's try to follow this example of consensus, shall we? Septentrionalis 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Some more assymmetric controversialists
[link removed] This page (and I have no idea whether there is such a cabal) offers a vivid picture of what fanatics can do to Wikipedia. (It seems to me to underestimate the effectiveness of dispute resolution, especially on well-known topics.) I would be against putting it in the page itself, under WP:BEANS; but we should realize what is possible. Septentrionalis 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A source is not a source, of course, of course
Counting sources is like counting edits: not a very good way to evaluate things. What if the definitive pro-framistat book has been written, but the anti-framistat position is still best expressed be a number of journal articles? Do we really need to balance the number of citations? What if new factual information simply invalidates old theories? The number of available citations for the old theory may be much larger than the single report on the DNA that refutes it, yet there is no reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence.

I agree that we need to fight the tendency to use multiplicity of sources as a peacock-term, but I am unconvinced that a numerical ratio tells us much, except perhaps to enshrine the practice. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Conversely the fanatical anti-framistatist may pepper the article with cn resulting in the pro-framistatists feeling compelled to add many many citations. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37 6 May 2009 (UTC).

"Spared the intuitionism debate"?
That's unfortunate, if true. The intuitionists have made such crucial contributions it would be a shame were they underrepresented. --Christofurio 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)